ivotuk":23mpazs1 said:
Why would anyone want ot start an inexperienced rookie behind this line? You think Marshawn is having fumble problems? Put Michael in there and see what you get, well besides him getting your franchise QB killed.
I never understand why people bemoan the fact that an untested rookie is not playing and seem to think he will be the next big thing. In reality, those kind of moves hurt a team, not help it. Relax, Lynch and Turbin are playing well and are one of the main reasons our QB can still walk.
Go back and watch some of the blocks Marshawn and Robert make, then imagine Christine attempting those blocks and what would happen to Russell Wilson. Remember Lynch spitting up blood?
I'm guessing here, but I believe they are making their decisions based on what they are seeing in practice.
I think we need to get our argument straight.
"Why would anyone want ot start an inexperienced rookie "
Um, where in god's green earth has anyone said that they want Michael to take the starting job away from BeastMode? This is called a STRAW MAN argument, where you argue against an argument you've created out of thin air.
Regarding fumbles, why would you assume Michael fumbles more than Lynch? Lynch and even more so Tate, have a real problem with securing the ball. There is very little correlation between experience and fumbling. Some players have major issues with fumbling, some have almost zero issues with fumbling. It has to do with how the player secures the ball. If you watch Tate run for instance, he holds the ball away from his body --almost any touch and the guy will fumble. Lynch doesn't have a problem nearly as bad, but it's obvious when he is struggling for more yards, the ball tends to move away from his body and he rarely has two hands securing the ball. This is a recipe for fumbling. Christine does not struggle for yardage like Beastmode. I haven't seen enough to say whether he is a fumbler or not, but to assume he is based on his experience is nonsense.
You have a lot of "imagine" or "guess" in your post. You may be right, or you may be wrong. But there is a difference between practice and real games, and coaches are susceptible to mistakes just like any human. YOu won't see his influence unless he gets a chance.
Sgt. Largent":23mpazs1 said:
Smellyman":23mpazs1 said:
it is frustrating that we lament the fact we need game breakers who threaten a D and desperately want to see harvin, have a guy on the bench who does just that.
1. When you have one of the best backs in the league like Lynch, it's hard to not give him touches for an unproven rookie.
2. Michael still has to learn pass protection. It's not as easy as just saying "He's exciting, let's get him in the game." He has a lot of responsibility other than just carrying the rock. Until he's got all that down, Pete isn't going to play him...........especially when he has two backs that know what they're doing ahead of him.
Michael is more than likely the back of the future, but that's not for another 2-3 years.
This is a reason to give Michael some running opportunities. You have Lynch who gives 100% on every run. Players are injury prone or not, and Lynch has shown in his time with us that he is NOT (in Buffalo it was another story), but you still do not want to get to the playoffs with a 75% Lynch. You want to give him as much rest as possible. Turbin is simply too much of a drop off in capability from Lynch. Michael is definitely not. In my mind, in order to have a 100% Lynch, you want to run him as little as possible while not affecting the outcome of the game. In this scenario, I would give Michael some time.
The only argument which can be made not to give him time is that they are not comfortable with his understanding and or blocking. Which makes perfect sense. Russell is the #1 guy on this team, superbowl hopes would go up in flames if he got hurt, so if Michael increases that chance, then you don't give him time. But this is the only argument against Michael. And you can better judge once he is in their for a few snaps in the game.
